In a context where all anyone talks about is how important they are and how everyone should wear one. I'd call that balancing.
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Cycling News
'Cycling body withdraws support for events that encourage the use of helmets'
(219 posts)- Started 11 years ago by chdot
- Latest reply from chdot
- This topic is
closed
-
Posted 11 years ago #
-
They could have avoided alienating part of their membership by not taking sides & not saying anything. It would have been sensible not to drag themselves into the argument.
I'm sure that was considered carefully - that Spokes have chosen to risk alienating people to take a stand over mandatory helmet use, I mean.
I'd like to think that in the long run, many more people will benefit than the odd one whose nose is temporarily out of joint.
The point is simple. Ammunition was given to the enemy. Crass.
Who are "the enemy"? Most potential cyclists are currently drivers (and cyclists are more likely to hold a driving licence than the average citizen). Some might argue that perpetuating a simplistic 'us and them' attitude is, itself, crass? ;-)
what SPOKES have done is say "we'll make the decision for you"
They should have remained neutral and let people make up their own minds and vote with their feet, mandatory helmets for charity rides - I fail to see the issue of they have some mental formd to fill in I find it unlikely they would be able to stop people from joining in or following at even a minimum distance I think the fact they have ticked the box that shows they asked everyone to wear them but they are not able to enforce it as it's not a law then why fuss?A campaign group refusing to support events where a choice is not permitted is somehow twisted round to be taking away choice. Again, bizarre.
If your solution is, people can turn up as long as they keep a minimum distance? Thanks, but that's not the sort of campaign approach I'd put money on...
Event organisers may see a drop in numbers and go back when they learn what this does but they will definitely see a drop in numbers now as SPOKES won't be telling people about the event in the first place.
Sounds like effective campaigning if so (although I think that is to overestimate the power of SPOKES).
I haven't yet got round to my rant about this so-called "creeping mandatory" thing. I see dozens of cyclists out in the sunshine not wearing, nobody telling them and hey if someone does tell them they can be an adult, grow a pair and stand up for themselves reminding the teller "it's my choice"
No, they can't. You have to wear a helmet to go on the event, period. Anywhere that people can just "stand up for themselves" isn't affected by Spokes' decision and so we needn't argue about it...
The problem is that Spokes appear to be only highlighting the disadvantages.....
I think it's better to consider that they are underlining the side of the argument which receives least attention. After all, we're not exactly short of pro-helmet information, are we?
Government policy seems to be that all cyclists must be portrayed wearing helmets, for instance, and your LBS might just have a poster shouting that helmets prevent 85% of head injuries (even though when we actually tried this by legislating for compulsory helmet use, the injury rate didn't fall at all, never mind by 5/6ths).
Your LBS certainly won't have a poster warning of a potentially increased risk of rotational injury or that there's some evidence that motorists will take less care overtaking you. At least, not any LBS I've been in...
Posted 11 years ago # -
[quote]Your LBS certainly won't have a poster warning of a potentially increased risk of rotational injury
[/quote]I haven't met a single medic who works in Neurosciences who takes this seriously. All those cyclists with diffuse axonal injuires just don't seem to be anywhere on the wards.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Perhaps. Do they acknowledge it in theory but dismiss it as a practical problem or do they not acknowledge the possibility? To what extent do cyclists with direct impact injuries feature in their caseloads?
Posted 11 years ago # -
Well. As people often point out: Brain doctors are not experts on helmet construction or design. Thus they aren't going to take a view on whether helmets could theoretically cause significant rotational injury. For sure, rotational injuries cause death, but the cyclists they see don't seem to have them. I don't know how many cyclists they see, probably not that many overall, but I do know that they all seem pretty keen on helmet wearing.
The point is, this is often raised by people who are opposed to helmets. Not only is there no proven link to helmets & rotational injury, there doesn't even seem to be any anecdotal 'evidence' either.
Posted 11 years ago # -
If rotational injuries cause death then I guess those guys go straight to the morgue and skip the neuroscience.
Posted 11 years ago # -
And I'm sure there's much about helmets that qualifies as 'evidence'. Less that would qualify as 'science'. And nothing that amounts to 'facts'.
Posted 11 years ago # -
^ But almost certainly via ITU.
The point is, if helmets had this effect, don't you think that the medics involved would be strongly anti-helmet?
Why would they support the use of an item which causes injury? Only a tiny minority of docs are anti-helmet & those who are do not seem to be involved in the trauma side.
Posted 11 years ago # -
But we're only talking about the experience of the neuroscientists you have met, which is, what, one? a few? So it's not really a good basis for saying what the discipline thinks. Anyway, this is as likely to be as unscientific as all the anecdotes where people say that they were saved by their helmets. What a few neuroscientists think (or even what a whole profession has decided it thinks, in the absence of science) is pretty much meaningless. But ..
If a cyclist appears in the ITU with a blunt force trauma from an RTA and they were wearing a helmet, the diagnosis is that it would have been worse without the helmet. If they are not wearing a helmet, then it might not have been so bad if they had been wearing a helmet. From that perspective, helmet always wins, even if it is irrelevant.
If they have rotational injuries, who's going to ask if this was caused/worsened/mitigated by a helmet? Who would even notice the helmet. Helmets are a device for direct impacts. Unless you started with a view on helmets as a problem it's unlikely you would think about the contribution of helmets to a rotational injury. And if they're rare in the first place ... So it doesn't surprise me that neuroscientists aren't thinking about helmets as a potential problem with rotational injuries but it also doesn't tell me anything about helmets and rotational injuries.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Think we've reached the point of circular arguments (back where we started many threads ago) -
'personal choice'
'surprisingly little convincing evidence'
'many opinions, some firmly held'
'more people cycling more = better'
'compulsion probably a bad idea'
'no convincing ideas about whether a 'helmet culture' - which now seems to exist amongst many people who cycle (viz PoP28) - puts off non-cyclists more or less than other things'
'Spokes may or may not have made a mistake'
Posted 11 years ago # -
But... where are the cyclists with rotational injuries? How can you say that the medics are ignoring the potential negative effects of helmets when the injuries aren't there in the first place?
Anyway. FWIW I personally do think that the safety benefits of helmets are exaggerated in the public mind. I'm not sure they prevent injury or death to the extent that non-cylists think they do. I do think that in some limited circumstances they will have a beneficial effect.
However.. the fact that some people are willing to grasp any convenient straw to imply that helmets are the work of Satan tends to irritate my sense of fair play. The rotational injury thing is just a complete red herring. People should read the cyclehelmets.org entry on it & if they think that is good 'evidence' then I suggest that they really are guilty of believing what they want to believe.Posted 11 years ago # -
Sure. Cyclehelmets,org is Bad Science with a capital BS, selecting the stats that makes its case and ignoring the ones that don't. It's rubbish.
But are you saying that there are no cyclists admitted to hospital with rotational injuries? Like, with some evidence? You might be right. I have no idea but appeals to authority - I haven't met a single medic who works in Neurosciences who takes this seriously - offend my sense of fair play since they imply some inside information that the rest of us don't have and I'm inclined to question it. And when it doesn't get backed up with anything of substance - some figures of ITU admissions of cyclists and the types of injuries they have - then I'm inclined not to take it too seriously even if it does have 'science' somewhere in its name. As far as I've read, even cyclehelmets.org offers it as a theoretical possibility rather than a fact so to dispute it you have to offer more than just saying that it doesn't exist.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Hmmm. I think the point I'm trying to make is that if you are trying to provide 'balance' to an argument it is probably better if there is some degree of substance to the 'potential' you are referring to. A counter-argument can't just consist of any number of unrealized potentialities and in terms of the rotational injury argument, I just don't see what is supposed to back it up.
Anyway, there always comes a time when it is wise to depart an internet helmet thread and I shall thus exit left (pursued by a bear)Posted 11 years ago # -
The potential for rotational injuries isn't, even from the newspaper coverage, the only element of Spokes' argument that was balancing. But leaving that aside, the fairest thing anyone could say is that there is no systematic data available to indicate whether, and to what extent, helmets, as currently specified and certified, offer effective protection to cyclists in motor vehicle collisions. People should be presented with the best available information and allowed to make their own decisions.
If no one else was saying anything that would be fair. When all the information presented to anyone stresses the positive benefits of helmets it's reasonable that someone should present the disbenefits. The fact that no one has collected evidence that would identify the extent of the disbenefits does not mean they don't exist.
Posted 11 years ago # -
@spytfyre, I like the idea of a counter, x days since we argued about h*****s.
(checks clock)
x = 1! woohoo :)
correction: Ah, boo. Someone posted while I was writing that...
...night all :)
Posted 11 years ago # -
The value of cyclehelmets.org to me is primarily that otherwise the studies which don't heavily favour helmet use would be impossible to find! I used to be strongly pro-helmet before I was referred to it...
The French have kept a trauma registry since the mid 90's and I found a useful summary of this via Google. (look for "The injury epidemiology of cyclists based on a road trauma registry")
Of the head injuries described, only 5.5% were fractures of the skull. Almost all the rest were 'closed' injuries (such as bleeds) caused by movement of the brain within the skull. Now while loads of these will certainly be impact injuries, rotational injury is acknowledged to be a significant cause - so much so that there are legal standards for rotational protection in motorbike helmets, for instance.
I can't find anything specific about the epidemiology in pedal cyclists, so I suppose it's possible that both helmeted and bareheaded cyclists have a much lower rate of rotational injury than other people with head injuries. But it seems like special pleading.
This is all really rather besides the point though. Taking up bareheaded cycling will increase your life expectency, so there's pretty much no way to spin it as much of a dangerous endeavour (not honestly, anyway).
I'd be interested if anyone can think of any other life intervention that increases life expectency but attracts as much rage and fear as choosing to cycle bareheaded?
Posted 11 years ago # -
Has any organisation successfully promoted both cycling and plastic cycling hats?
Posted 11 years ago # -
Do people think that motorcyclists are putting their lives at risk by wearing helmets ?
Posted 11 years ago # -
Every time we have debated this thorny topic lately, people have tended to be more restrained in the claims of the data. This is good as my main bugbear is that people dress up weak research as harder than it is if it suits their opinion. Nice to see the French data quoted as a percentage where this is available and speculation where the rotational factor is not determined.
Taking up cycling will make you healthier
Also likely that wearing a helmet will make you or your child marginally safer, very slight improvement in my view. Thus the opprobrium heaped on someone for not wearing a lid is indeed irksome.
Posted 11 years ago # -
"Do people think that motorcyclists are putting their lives at risk by wearing helmets ? "
This question is so vague that it's hard to answer. From a public health perspective, helmets and full leathers have undoubtedly had a positive effect, because there are no systemic health benefits of motorcycling which might counteract any direct injury reduction in the form of reduced participation.
Motorcycle helmets are also massively more effective than pedal cycle helmets as you can see from the respective test requirements. My bike helmet won't even pass a basic 1980's SNELL test as the current EU standards are much less protective.
But I'll answer it with another question I think. Who's safer, the motorcyclist with helmet on crashing off a B-road at 90mph or the bareheaded motorcyclist puttering around to their office averaging 10-15mph through city traffic?
Yes, your question is not simple.
Posted 11 years ago # -
And then there is this:
Posted 11 years ago # -
"The story has now become "cyclists argue among themselves about helmets"
Interestingly, on twitter, John Lauder (Sustrans) & Chis Oliver (CTC-Scotland) were agreeing with Spokes.
Chris Oliver is an orthopaedic surgeon so very used to comparing risks/benefits.There are times when nuance and sophistication about argument are just wrong. This is not really about helmet wearing or otherwise.
It is just about Spokes being stupid.
End of.
I don't think so. I think it's Spokes being sensible, and I think it is about helmet wearing, and also about how risky people believe cycling to be.But CTC have no problem with being anti compulsion, yet happy enough to allow coverage in their publications for such events. Which begs the question why have Spokes chosen to withdraw from sensible self choice and stand on one side of the fence - and semantics apart, this is what they have done.
Spokes haven't withdrawn from self-choice. They're not saying Spokes members aren't allowed to wear helmets or to take part in helmet-compulsory events. They're just saying if you make your event helmet-compulsory, we won't advertise it. That seems to me to be sticking up for people's right to choose.Personally, that's a choice I also make - I wouldn't ride an event where helmets or hi viz suits were mandatory, so a big thumbs up from this quarter.
Whereas I would, if I had planned to wear a helmet/hi-viz anyway, but if I didn't want to wear them, I wouldn't do so against my will just to participate.I'm afraid the way I see it is that Spokes have taken sides. (Especially as they promote cycle hemets.org as a neutral website). They could have avoided alienating part of their membership by not taking sides & not saying anything. It would have been sensible not to drag themselves into the argument.
I'm glad they've got involved in the argument, and have chosen to stick up for those members who are excluded from some events because they choose not to wear a helmet. I don't think avoiding the issue helps at all - I'd rather it was being discussed. As I see it, the only people they've alienated are the people who think helmets should be compulsory for cyclists. Anyone who supports cyclists' rights to choose should feel supported by Spokes saying they will not promote events which remove the cyclists' right to choose.It is in all the materials that my kids are given at school and the hyperbolic lies my son brings home from cubs (that, for example, someone was only saved from a lorry driving over their head by the fact that they were wearing a helmet).
Ahahahahahaha. Truly, a magic hat.Posted 11 years ago # -
I'm not such a fan of the false dichotomy of cycling and not-cycling. I agree that [cycling_benefit - cycling_risk] sums to a big ole positive but it does assume that if you aren't cycling, then you are taking no physical exercise whatsoever.
I tentatively suggest that cycling is not the only active pursuit in the universe which yields health benefits, and that many of these alternate forms of exercise are safer.
I doubt any of them partially or fully replace your commuting time, let alone reduce it, so for exceptionally busy people the dichotomy is fair enough.
I'm one of those busy people - between holding down two jobs, I've no spare time for exercise, so I'm glad my bikes get my cardio in without cutting into my chocka regime of Skyrim, CCE banter, specialty beers and browsing bike pr0n.
For the rest of the populous, it sets my teeth on edge a little, in the same way it set my teeth on edge to imply my head injury would have been prevented if I'd been wearing a lid.
I used to say that in all confidence, but over the last year I've become progressively less sure. The scar begins an inch below the helmet line(or two if you wear you helmet badly like so many do) and I just dunno whether it would have helped any more. I had to fall into a ditch to get the angle just so, therefore I won't claim it's a typical accident.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Kirst - I think the above thread has proved my point that this decision has resulted in cyclists arguing amongst themselves (frustratingly, making the Scotsman article correct). This has led a group of people who agree on all the fundamentals about cycling and want to see more cyclists and better road conditions expending time and energy on an issue of almost no importance to anyone outside a tiny circle.
SPOKES do fantstic work and I am sure its decision makers put a lot of thought into this decision. However, I don't think they fully anticipated the wider impact on the cycling community and how this may play with local and national decision makers. I honestly think keeping a neutral position was the best option. From my perspective this is how a non-cycling decision maker will see this:
1. SPOKES make a statement that is generally interpreted as anti-helmet.
2. Non-cyclist MSP/Councillor, who generally consider helmets to show cyclists taking some responsibility for their own safety, considers this to show cyclists not willing to play their part in improving road safety.
3. Future representations from SPOKES to these MSPs/Councillors potentially coloured by the view that other road users should take additional measures to protect cyclists when cyclists won't play their part.Please note - I'm not arguing over the effectiveness or otherwise of helmets, the detail of the SPOKES position or the issue of compulsion, these are effectively irellevant as they are only of interest to a tiny minority of people. If anyone wants to dispute my reasoning then please feel free.
Posted 11 years ago # -
But if we weren't arguing about this, I'd like to think we'd be arguing about something else. Argument is not a bad thing. It's the only way ideas develop. Not in the course of the argument, of course. People take positions and defend them but they do develop. I've been reading about Einstein and Nils Bohr arguing about quantum mechanics and how the science improved because they argued, not in spite of it.
Generally, I don't think we should always be looking over our shoulders worrying that discussing something or taking controversial or difficult positions on issues will play badly with some other audience. All that will happen is that cyclists will end up like the political parties, stifling discussion and watering down their views because they're constantly trying to please an imagined audience. I don't care what the Scotsman or some non-cycling councillor or MSP thinks. I care what people here think and how they think and, when they think differently from me, whether they might be right or not. I argue to find out if I'm wrong.
Posted 11 years ago # -
expending time and energy on an issue of almost no importance to anyone outside a tiny circle.
Awww. That's my favourite hobby. I tried to start a forum based on it on another site, but the thread discussing whether it was a good idea ran to forty-seven pages and led to three permanent bans before locking. The thread discussing what to name it, on the other hand, got ugly.
Posted 11 years ago # -
I can't help but think that one main argument has been forgotten, which is that events that state compulsory helmet wearing are likely doing so for insurance purposes. If SPOKES are going to refuse to support events that have no option but to ask for compulsory helmet wearing, is that really the right thing to do? If I was attempting to organise such an event and discovered that SPOKES refused to support the event through no fault of my own, I'd be somewhat peeved.
Posted 11 years ago # -
I've asked a lot of these events why they insist on hats and they don't say insurance. They tell me it's for safety and common sense and so on. Their replies are so fluffy I could just die.
I suspect they have no idea why the insist on them and have never thought about it, they did not know how. Perhaps they're thinking now.
SPOKES are not doing anything bad to hat insistent events they just aren't doing anything good for the events.
Posted 11 years ago # -
@mkns, if you go on any audax event you're covered by their insurance and there are no restrictions on what you need to wear. The entry fees per event are often little more than the cost of postage and petrol for the organiser (like, sub £5).
Without being involved in organising any charity stuff myself, it seems odd to me that they can't find cover that will allow normally dressed folk to turn up. I suspect the real answer is either that it's a convenient excuse, or the insurance companies are offering a sweeter rate (which might be attractive to "commercial charity" events which are put on by for-profit events companies etc?)
@Morningsider - I think you overestimate the impact of the policy. IMO decisionmakers have a fixed position on issues that is sometimes affected by electors and aren't likely to be swayed by something as abstract as whether or not the local co-ordinating group's advertising policy is all-inclusive or allows discriminatory events (carefully spun! ;-)
However, I guess I could use WriteToThem to query my own representatives for reassurance?
Posted 11 years ago # -
I see Edinburgh bike co-op punting two t- shirts one with a drawing of an antique bell (ding dong) and the other has a drawing of a MTB full helmet (head case)
Posted 11 years ago #
Topic Closed
This topic has been closed to new replies.
posts
